He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name,
he gave the right to become children of God, who were born,
not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man,
but of God. –John 1:12-13
Brigham Young taught,
“The scriptures made use of by Elder George A. Smith this morning, show the way in which the former Saints became the sons of God. ‘But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name.’…
“I think, however, that the rendering of this Scripture is not so true as the following, namely: ‘But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to continue to be the sons of God.’ Instead of receiving the gospel to become the sons of God, my language would be—to receive the gospel that we may continue to be the sons of God. Are we not all sons of God when we are born into this world? Old Pharaoh, King of Egypt, was just as much a son of God as Moses and Aaron were His sons, with this difference—he rejected the word of the Lord, the true light, and they received it. For ‘this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.’ [John 3:19] Then we receive not the gospel that we may become the sons of God, but that we may remain the sons of God without rebuke. …My doctrine is—that there never was a son and daughter of Adam and Eve born on this earth whose names were not already written in the Lamb’s book of life, and there they will remain until their conduct is such that the angel who keeps the record is authorized to blot them out and record them elsewhere.” (Brigham Young, November 17, 1867, Journal of Discourses, 12:100-101)
Brigham Young’s interpretation of the passage from John 1 doesn’t make sense if we look at the broader context. Young says all human beings are already sons of God when born into this world; that receiving Christ gives people the power to continue as or remain sons of God. But John says those who receive Christ become children of God, born not by any human endeavor, but born of God (John 1:13).
In chapter 3 John talks more about being born of God, this new birth: You must be born again, born of the Spirit, that “Whoever believes in Him may have eternal life.” (John 3:15).
In chapter 8 John records Jesus saying,
“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God…You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. …Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.” (John 8:42-47)
Brigham Young contradicts Jesus. Jesus says sons do what their fathers desire; that those who belong to God hear His words. Brigham Young says those who are sons of God instead do what is evil, thereby casting themselves out of the family.
Our problem with sin is so much greater than Brigham Young ever imagined. Christian theologian R.C. Sproul explains:
“Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being. It permeates our hearts. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that the Bible says: ‘There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one.’ (Romans 3:10-12)
“It is because of this condition that the verdict of Scripture is heard: we are ‘dead in trespasses and sins’ (Ephesians 2:1); we are ‘sold under sin’ (Romans 7:14); we are in ‘captivity to the law of sin’ (Romans 7:23); and are ‘by nature children of wrath’ (Ephesians 2:3). Only by the quickening of the power of the Holy Spirit may we be brought out of this state of spiritual death. It is God who makes us alive as we become His craftsmanship (Ephesians 2:1-10).”
SteveH,
I am persuaded that God has kept the Bible free from doctrinal corruption. We have many existing ancient copies from different sources and the discrepancies between the various copies come down to a few words out of hundreds of thousands. None affects any major Christian doctrine. It's easy to say "it's been corrupted" without paying attention to the overwhelming evidence that supports Biblical authenticity.
You are right, there is much falsehood that goes on in the name of Christ, just as Jesus told us it would be. Jesus said there would be wheat and tares, saved and unsaved in the Church (universal). Today we see Churches that deny the truth of the gospel of Christ crucified, and those that hold fast to the truth – just as Christ told us it would be. Those who deny the centrality of Jesus death and resurrection are actually a fulfillment of the words of Christ. Those who do not hold fast to the truth twist and turn to deny the plain truth of the Bible, pulling verses out of context, denying the reliability of the Bible, and distorting what God has plainly revealed.
On another note, Joseph Smith in seeking to establish a new religion did not establish just one – but countless splinter groups all claiming to bear the truth of Joseph Smith. The "sharp clarity" brought about by "the prophet" was apparently not so clear to many after he died, and still many more today who claim to follow Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. There are a multiplicity of "prophets" interpreting "prophets" and coming to different conclusions. When your faith is based on the word of one man and not the Word of God you can be lead in any direction and into multiple contradictions – present revelation undoing past revelation and denying what is plainly revealed in scripture.
God's word is not complicated, nor has it been corrupted. God has given us everything we need in Christ for a right relationship with Him.
Then, Steve, what is the issue?
GRCluff wrote: "Because evangelicals have defined angels incorrectly. It is not a post earth life role, but a pre-earth life role."
First Christians don't believe men become angels, nor do we believe that we are the same species as angels, and you will not find anywhere in scripture that states differently.
As to Lucifer why should we believe he "appears" any different than an angel of Light? Scripture doesn't give us a reason to, (2 Corinthians 11:14) rather it tells us to beware angels lest they preach a Gospel that Paul did not preach. (Galatians 1:6-9)
In the loose description of angels that the LDS use, I can see how they would call Satan an angel, but I don't think you could find such thinking in the biblical writ.
Lautensack
SteveH: my point, and I think Mobaby's as well, is simply this: it seems every bit as easy to become "mired" in what that prphets say and have said, as it is "mired in the interpretations of theologians". And as Mobababy noted above: first you'd have to decide WHICH MORMON prophet it is you're talking about, seems there are several to pick from.
There seems to be ample ambiguity to go around , you choose to see the protestant situation as weighty orj consequential, and your LDS issues as either 'peripheral' or some other excuse. To think that the 'word from the prophet' is more consistent or 'sure' seems like smoke and mirrors to me. How is trusting what a theologian/preacher/teacher heard from God so different than trusting what a prophet heard from God ?? Either may be 'sure', and seemingly either may be garbled. And course, knowing what I do of JS and Brigham's respective lives, I'll stay with the theologians, thank you
SteveH wrote: "This complete and utter negativity of man's condition is not present in Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, or Coptic theological traditions."
This is simply false. I submit to you Canons one through three of the Second Council of Orange 529, a church council that was deemed orthodox prior to the East/West schism of 1054.
Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwilgli, etc. were simply picking up on the historical Christian tradition that had been corrupted through medieval speculation. Thus while the Roman and Greek traditions may have returned to Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, to say that they never affirmed man's fallen state is simply false.
Lautensack
The scriptures cited in the original post show conditional terms to becoming "Children of God" ie Believing and Receiving the Savior. Spiritually begotten. I'm sure all of us would agree that Becoming the Children of God (Sons of Christ) occurs through the Atonement. That certainly does not prove that we did or did not exist as the "offspring of God" prior to this life.
(CONT)
The real issue here is the doctrine of antemortal existence of man. "Who sinned this man or his parents that he was born blind". John 9:2
Sons of God in existence before the foundation of the world Job 38:7
If Man existed before he came to earth, where did he come from?
Without the restoration scriptures issues such as these go unanswered, in my opinion.
P.S. just curious you mentioned "your prophet" in an earlier post. Who is that?
IntenseDebate Notification <DIV>The spirits that don't make human form are Lucifer and his angels:</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>
They arethe unclean spirits who called themselves Legion in Mark 5:8-9. Unclean because they followed Lucifer. They recognized Christ from the pre-existance.
They were cast out of heaven in Isaiah 14:12-15 and Rev 12:7-9.
</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV style=”FONT: 10pt arial”>
Notice Brigham Young said
BY Thinks himself into a lie, He did not search the Scriptures to know if these things are true, as ACTS 17:11. And the Bible does speak of Earthly human Wisdom, Which it seems BY was using. Rick b
I am willing to bet that BY would agree with you (I am sure to your surprise). In fact that is probably why he stated "My doctrine" to begin with. Having said that, unless anyone here is willing to say "Thus sayeth the Lord" then every comment on this blog is, or at least has a strong tendency, toward "philosophy of men…." The irony of the whole thing is if anyone has authority to speak for the Lord, it was BY in his time. If it was binding doctrine he would have said, "Thus sayeth the Lord". but he didn't. He is offering his opinion, but it makes much more sense to me than many of the comments I have heard here.
PS. All of God's doctrine is at some point the Doctrine of the Prophet who spoke. You have nothing in scripture where God himself penned His doctrine. He always speaks through prophets. Where do you draw the line?
Lautensack,
Thanks for looking up some of the historical foundation of our faith. It is amazing to basically see the faith of the reformers confirmed by this early Church council. This shows that the reformers were indeed just that, reformers, working to revitalize and "reform" true Christianity and free it from the false doctrines that always creep in. I especially find Canon 3 interesting – "it is grace itself which makes us pray to God." This confirms even more that the gospel centered on the redemptive power of God through Christ that the reformers preached was a truth that has been understood throughout the history of the Church. Man being a child of wrath and rebellion (NOT a child of God by nature) has been clearly understood by believers since Christ died and rose and the gospel was first proclaimed. God in his mercy has reached down and saved unworthy sinners and made us joint heirs with Christ, adopted sons and daughters.
Where is it ever stated in scripture that "God promised to keep His church from falling away," or that "He would keep the scriptures in pristine condition and all in one?" There is no such statement or promise. In fact, the apostasy was consistent with man's entire history. The opinion that God "preserved" scripture in whole and perfect form in just that- an opinion.
To say we have all the scripture God has given is an even bigger jump.
Germit,
As I stated in my post, "critics" of the LDS Church and its doctrines love to attack peripheral issues such as polygamy. It is understandable that President Hinckley was reluctant to respond to hypothetical questions regarding speculation on the nature and origin of God the Father. We really do not know much about that subject nor is it taught to any great degree in LDS chapels. Such matters are in the realm of speculation and conjecture and are at best peripheral to our main concern and focus which is the atonement of Jesus Christ.
It seems to me that "critics" of Mormonism are forever mired in the 19th century and are obsessed by their gross caricature of the LDS Church, its doctrines and its people. Such "critics" really do not know or wish to know the contemporary LDS Church.
Germit,
As I stated in my post, "critics" of the LDS Church and its doctrines love to attack peripheral issues such as polygamy. It is understandable that President Hinckley was reluctant to respond to hypothetical questions regarding speculation on the origin of God the Father. As President Hinckley stated, we really do not know much about that subject nor is it taught to any great degree in LDS chapels. Such matters are in the realm of speculation and conjecture and are at best peripheral to our main concern and focus which is the atonement of Jesus Christ.
It seems to me that "critics" of Mormonism are forever mired in the 19th century and are obsessed by their gross caricature of the LDS Church, its doctrines and its people. Such "critics" really do not know or wish to know the contemporary LDS Church.
Aaron,
I appreciate the writings of Blake Ostler and would enjoy the opportunity to discuss them further. However, that is getting off topic.
Which is exactly why the King Follett Discourse was again quoted from in the second chapter of the currently used church curriculum, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, right? Because the correlation committee is still mired in the 19th century and is bent on caricaturing the Church?
Steve, I recommend reading the first few chapters of Odds Are, You're Going to Be Exalted: Evidence That the Plan of Salvation Works, by Alonzo L. Gaskill. You can still get it like I did at the BYU bookstore.
Soy,
If you draw the line at Hebrews 1, then why not end the book there. End of story. Everything that needs to be said or done is complete. Why the need for Peter, James, John, Revelation. If you accept those books, on what basis do you have to reject anything additional. If the prophets felt justified in continuing to produce scripture why not now?
Prophets are obedient to the core. The do what the Lord tells them. That is why scripture did not end at Hebrews 1. They were commanded to testify.
If the Lord spake unto you from heaven and commanded you to do something wouldn't you do it? "…I the Lord called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jr. and spake unto him from heaven" D&C 1
4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.
5 And they shall ago forth and none shall stay them, for I the Lord have commanded them.
GRCluff,
In Job, I think sons refers to the angelic hosts or heavenly beings. It's an idiom. I see no indication that they are the product of a sexual or some kind of natural copulative relationship between Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.
In context, Jeremiah is referring to God's appointing and setting aside Jeremiah. As the Hebrew word for "know" is the same for "choose", this has to do with God's decree and foreordination and foreknowledge.
In Titus and 2 Timothy, again, it is referring to decree and foreknowledge. Paul's view of this is expounded more in parts of other letters, like Ephesians 1. Your usage of this passage is odd. Do you really think God literally gave us the atoning grace and forgiveness that Paul speaks of in some pre-existence spirit-child state? I wasn't aware you believed that you were a sinner in pre-mortality, already in need of sacrificial mercy from your Elder Brother?
The passage in Ecclesiastes is a manner of speaking, and more importantly I think it has to do with the OT emphasis that our inner-life is the result of God's sustaining "breath".
GRCluff,
In Job, I think sons refers to the angelic hosts or heavenly beings. It's an idiom. I see no indication that they are the product of a sexual relationship or some other kind of natural copulative relationship between Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.
In context, Jeremiah is referring to God's appointing and setting aside Jeremiah. As the Hebrew word for "know" is the same for "choose", this has to do with God's decree and foreordination and foreknowledge.
In Titus and 2 Timothy, again, it is referring to decree and foreknowledge. Paul's view of this is expounded more in parts of other letters, like Ephesians 1. Your usage of this passage is odd. Do you really think God literally gave us the atoning grace and forgiveness that Paul speaks of in some pre-existence spirit-child state? I wasn't aware you believed that you were a sinner in pre-mortality, already in need of sacrificial mercy from your Elder Brother?
The passage in Ecclesiastes is a manner of speaking, and more importantly I think it has to do with the OT emphasis that our inner-life is the result of God's sustaining "breath".
GRCluff,
In Job, I think sons refers to the angelic hosts or heavenly beings. It's an idiom. I see no indication that they are the product of a sexual relationship or some other kind of natural copulative relationship between Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.
In context, Jeremiah is referring to God's appointing and setting aside Jeremiah. As the Hebrew word for "know" is the same for "choose", this has to do with God's decree and foreordination and foreknowledge.
In Titus and 2 Timothy, again, it is referring to decree and foreknowledge. Paul's view of this is expounded more in parts of other letters, like Ephesians 1. Your usage of Paul is odd. Do you really think God literally gave us the atoning grace and forgiveness that Paul speaks of in some pre-existence spirit-child state? I wasn't aware you believed that you were a sinner in pre-mortality, already in need of sacrificial mercy from your Elder Brother?
The passage in Ecclesiastes is a manner of speaking, and more importantly I think it has to do with the OT emphasis that our inner-life is the result of God's sustaining "breath".
By calling it "utter depravity", you are intentionally using a phrase we use for an idea distinct from "total depravity. And since you have already been informed on this, it gives the impression you are being malevolent.
As for whether the historical context of the Council of Orange, remember that it follows the debates between Pelagius and Augustine. If you don't think that debate has anything to do with the doctrine of total depravity then you need to read some Augustinian and Pelagian literature (especially primary sources). Try "Confessions" for a start.
By calling it "utter depravity", you are intentionally using a phrase we use for an idea distinct from "total depravity. And since you have already been informed on this, it gives the impression you are being malevolent.
As for the historical context of the Council of Orange, remember that it follows the debates between Pelagius and Augustine. If you don't think that debate has anything to do with the doctrine of total depravity then you need to read some Augustinian and Pelagian literature (especially primary sources). Try "Confessions" for a start.
Job 38:7 has already been dealt with. John 9:2 doesn't help your cause, because Jesus didn't even affirm what they asked (whether or not the question echoed what you think it did).
Regarding early Jewish assumptions, George R. Beasley-Murray writes,
"The possibility of a child sinning before birth was discussed by the rabbis, not in respect of a pre-existent life (Wisd Sol 8:19-20 reflects Alexandrian, not Palestinian Judaism), but of life in the womb, Gen. 25:22, telling of the twins Jacob and Esau struggling in Rebecca’s womb, provoked some interesting explanations." (see more on this here)
Job 38:7 has already been dealt with. John 9:2 doesn't help your cause, because Jesus didn't even affirm what they asked (whether or not the question echoed what you think it did).
Regarding early Palestinian Jewish assumptions, George R. Beasley-Murray writes,
"The possibility of a child sinning before birth was discussed by the rabbis, not in respect of a pre-existent life (Wisd Sol 8:19-20 reflects Alexandrian, not Palestinian Judaism), but of life in the womb, Gen. 25:22, telling of the twins Jacob and Esau struggling in Rebecca’s womb, provoked some interesting explanations." (see more on this here)
FaithofFathers wrote: "Where is it ever stated in scripture that "God promised to keep His church from falling away," or that "He would keep the scriptures in pristine condition and all in one?" There is no such statement or promise."
Matthew 16:18 – And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus seems to state that the gates of hell will never prevail against his church however if the church did cease to exist for roughly 1700 years then the Gates of Hell did prevail against the church for those 1700 years. So we either have to say that Jesus was a liar or the church did not fall away.
Ephesians 3:20-21 – Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
Here it is plain that Paul thought that the Father would be glorified in the church "throughout all generations, forever and ever." If the church failed and ceased to exist for roughly 1700 years then how exactly was God glorified in it?
Now the God's keeping of the scriptures could get into textual criticism which even Bart Ehrman says 99% of the textual variants don't make any difference at all. But I prefer using Scripture.
Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.
Psalm 119:160 – The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
Isaiah 40:8 – The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
Matthew 24:35/Mark 13:31 – Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
1 Peter 1:23-25 – since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
The Psalmists, Isaiah, Jesus, and Peter all seemed to think that God's word would never pass away.
Now I will agree to say that the Bible is all the scripture God has given is an act of faith. However faith alone is not needed, Jesus makes it clear that the Pentateuch is all one needs to come to a saving faith.
Luke 16:29-31 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"
John 5:46 – For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.
John also seems to believe his Gospel was enough to warrant true belief.
John 21:24 – This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
The problem comes when someone says they have new revelation that is contradictory to previous revelation, thus we test their prophecy by the formula given in Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
Lautensack
FaithofFathers wrote: "Where is it ever stated in scripture that "God promised to keep His church from falling away," or that "He would keep the scriptures in pristine condition and all in one?" There is no such statement or promise."
Matthew 16:18 – And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Jesus seems to state that the gates of hell will never prevail against his church however if the church did cease to exist for roughly 1700 years then the Gates of Hell did prevail against the church for those 1700 years. So we either have to say that Jesus was a liar or the church did not fall away.
Ephesians 3:20-21 – Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen.
Here it is plain to see that Paul thought that the Father would be glorified in the church "throughout all generations, forever and ever." If the church failed and ceased to exist for roughly 1700 years then how exactly was God glorified in it?
Now the God's keeping of the scriptures could get into textual criticism which even Bart Ehrman says 99% of the textual variants don't make any difference at all. But I prefer using Scripture.
Psalm 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.
Psalm 119:160 – The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
Isaiah 40:8 – The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
Matthew 24:35/Mark 13:31 – Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
1 Peter 1:23-25 – since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
The Psalmists, Isaiah, Jesus, and Peter all seemed to think that God's word would never pass away.
Now I will agree to say that the Bible is all the scripture God has given is an act of faith. However faith alone is not needed, Jesus makes it clear that the Pentateuch is all one needs to come to a saving faith.
Luke 16:29-31 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"
John 5:46 – For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.
John also seems to believe his Gospel was enough to warrant true belief.
John 21:24 – This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
The problem comes when someone says they have new revelation that is contradictory to previous revelation, thus we test their prophecy by the formula given in Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
Lautensack
AMEN to both points!
I draw the line with Hebrews 1:1-2 which says
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
The prophets in the Bible prophesied about Christ and what he would do when he came. That was their purpose, to speak for him and prepare the world for His arrival. When Jesus came to the earth, there was no longer a need for them since He could speak to everyone directly and cut out the middle man. When it was time for Christ to leave this earth, He sent his apostles to teach the very things he taught them. God did not call another prophet because Jesus was the last prophet.
I do not believe that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or any other prophet after Christ, had or has the authority to speak for the Lord. The New Testament is full of warnings about false prophets who teach “another gospel”. I think this is a perfect example as to why all those warnings exist.
I’m sure if I looked, it would not be too hard to find a number of "Thus sayeth the Lord” statements from Mormon prophets that have since been reversed or explained away so by no means is that a definitive way to look for concrete doctrine in the LDS church today.
Aaron,
You are correct in that the proper terminology as originally espoused by Calvin should be "Total Depravity" and not "Utter Depravity". Nevertheless, it should be noted that the theological positions taken by the Reformist Protestants in the 16th century differ substantially from those promulgated in the 4th and 5th centuries by the early Roman Catholic Church.
As I stated previously there is a thousand year gap between the early Church Fathers (Augustine et. al.) and the Protestant reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli etc.). Granted that Augustine discussed the theological notions of Original Sin and the nature of man but that does not mean that he was postulating the same notions of Jean Calvin whose idea of Total Depravity is considerably more austere than that of the early Catholic theologians. As an analogy, consider that of a spectrum concerning the nature of man where Calvin's views would be held at the extreme end of the spectrum.
Catholic theologians would strongly disagree with the assertion that Augustine and company were espousing the Calvinist notion of Total Depravity and would reject this appropriation of one of their foundational theologians by the Protestant movement. As I have stated a number of times Protestant theology is quite distinct from that of Roman Catholicism.
Again this thread seems to be drifting off Sharon's original topic which is concerned with the notion of mankind being the children of God. I guess that is a hazard of this "IntenseDebate" format where multiple threads can be debated simultaneously.
Aaron,
The point that I was making regarding President Hinckley's interview with Time Magazine (wherein the Lorenzo Snow couplet was brought up: "As Man is God once was, As God is Man may become") is that he was correct in stating that our knowledge of the origin of our Heavenly Father is very limited and that we do not dwell on the subject. Rather the focus of the LDS Church has always been and will always be on the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
To quote Joseph Smith:
"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and arose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."
The second chapter (out of 43) in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith is entitled God the Eternal Father and briefly quotes from the King Follett Discourse wherein it is asserted the Heavenly Father (like Jesus Christ) is an exalted man. This revealed truth stands in stark contrast to the ill-founded notion that God the Father is without "body, parts, or passions" and is some vengeful, amorphous galactic entity that fills the cosmos.
It is clear that the evangelical view of God is completely erroneous and at variance with Biblical descriptions of Heavenly Father provided by eyewitnesses such as Moses and other prophets.
Steve H,
I agree current catholic theologians would disagree with Augustine, Francis, some of Anselm. However since you insist total depravity was "made up" by John Calvin allow me to also add Canons 4 – 8 of the second council of Orange:
Lautensack
Heb 1:5 To which of the angels did (God) ever say, "You are my son, today I have begotten you"? And again, "I will be a Father to him and he shall be a son to me"?
This verse tells me that angels do not become men. Angels are totally different from humans, a completely different species and cannot substantiate from one species to another.
Steve H,
I agree current catholic theologians would disagree with Augustine, Francis, some of Anselm. However since you insist total depravity was "made up" by John Calvin allow me to also add Canons 4 – 8 of the second council of Orange:
The Doctrine of Total Depravity – 529AD
Lautensack
Cluff said The baptism of the Holy Ghost is a full immersion event when the Holy Spirit fills our hearts and our whole souls with testimony.
On the evangelical side, I sort of agree with this. Our re-birth as a Christian comes when the HS fills us with testimony that Jesus is the Christ. However, your statement bothers me. In LDS tradition, 8 yr olds are baptised and then through guys laying their hands on the child's head they receive the Holy Ghost. First of all, no one but the LORD can give someone the HS; secondly, if you truly believe your statement, then how can you know that an 8 yr old is ready to receive that? Baptism isn't magic. It's not a magical event where a bunch of guys channel their holiness and tell the HS to start dwelling in a child. Baptism is a symbol. It's a physical sign of what has ALREADY happened internally -we have died to our old selves and been reborn, raised to a new life in Christ. This is a decision that every person must make on their own, it should not automatically happen because one is a certain age and is subject to the influence of family and friends.
I guess my point is something along the lines of: that moment when the Spirit fills us and we know we are saved is so tremendous, how can we "force" that onto children so young?
Cluff said The baptism of the Holy Ghost is a full immersion event when the Holy Spirit fills our hearts and our whole souls with testimony.
On the evangelical side, I sort of agree with this. Our re-birth as a Christian comes when the HS fills us with testimony that Jesus is the Christ (to simplify it a bit). However, your statement bothers me. In LDS tradition, 8 yr olds are baptised and then through guys laying their hands on the child's head they receive the Holy Ghost. First of all, no one but the LORD can give someone the HS; secondly, if you truly believe your statement, then how can you know that an 8 yr old is ready to receive that? Baptism isn't magic. It's not a magical event where a bunch of guys channel their holiness and tell the HS to start dwelling in a child. Baptism is a symbol. It's a physical sign of what has ALREADY happened internally -we have died to our old selves and been reborn, raised to a new life in Christ. This is a decision that every person must make on their own, it should not automatically happen because one is a certain age and is subject to the influence of family and friends.
I guess my point is something along the lines of: that moment when the Spirit fills us and we know we are saved is so tremendous, how can we "force" that onto children so young?
Which is exactly why the King Follett Discourse was again quoted from in the second chapter of the currently used church curriculum, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, right? Because the correlation committee is still mired in the 19th century and is bent on caricaturing the Church, and loves delving into speculation and conjecture?
Steve, I recommend reading the first few chapters of Odds Are, You're Going to Be Exalted: Evidence That the Plan of Salvation Works, by Alonzo L. Gaskill. You can still get it like I did at the BYU bookstore. It's yet more evidence that your institution's teachings have a real adverse affect on people's view of God.
Lautebsack,
Doctrines of Predestination, Utter Depravity, Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc. are clear and distinct doctrines of the Protestant Reformation and are the domain of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli et al. Most Biblical scholars (Catholic or Protestant) would take strong exception to your assertion that the Canons of the Second Council of Orange of 529 are in anyway related to Jean Calvin's doctrine of Utter Depravity. There is a thousand year interlude between the two.
The fact of the matter is that Protestant theology differs substantially from that of Roman Catholicism or that of the Greek Orthodox church.
GRCluff,
In Job 38:4 I think you're getting the message backwards. It is a rhetorical question. It is significant because you weren't around.
In Job 38:7, I think "sons" refers to the angelic hosts or awesome heavenly beings (you could even call them "gods" in a lesser sense). It's an idiom. I see no indication that they are the product of a sexual relationship or some other kind of natural copulative relationship between Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.
In context, Jeremiah is referring to God's appointing and setting aside Jeremiah. As the Hebrew word for "know" is the same for "choose", this has to do with God's decree and foreordination and foreknowledge.
In Titus and 2 Timothy, again, it is referring to decree and foreknowledge. Paul's view of this is expounded more in parts of other letters, like Ephesians 1. Your usage of Paul is odd. Do you really think God literally gave us (the "elect" in Titus 1:1) the atoning grace and forgiveness that Paul speaks of in some pre-existence spirit-child state? I wasn't aware you believed that you were a sinner in pre-mortality, already in need of sacrificial mercy from your Elder Brother?
The passage in Ecclesiastes is a manner of speaking, and more importantly I think it has to do with the OT emphasis that our inner-life is the result of God's sustaining "breath".
I ask the Mormons here, what do you do with the clear and consistent theme in the Gospel of John of Jesus as the uniquely preexisting one? John the Baptist testified, "After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me." (1:30) In 1:1 it is notable that the Word was "in the beginning" with God. In 1:18 we hear, "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." In 3:13 we hear, "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." In 6:38 we hear, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me." In chapter 8 Jesus is almost stoned for claiming to have pre-existed Abraham. And of course, Jesus is referred to as the only begotten Son, but there is no indication that all humans are in any sexual or copulative spirit-baby sense begotten sons and daughters of God. Jesus prays in 17:5, "Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."
Worshiping the uniquely pre-existent Son of God,
Aaron
Job 38:7 has already been dealt with. John 9:2 doesn't help your cause, because Jesus didn't even affirm what they asked (whether or not the question echoed what you think it did).
Regarding early Palestinian Jewish assumptions, George R. Beasley-Murray writes,
"The possibility of a child sinning before birth was discussed by the rabbis, not in respect of a pre-existent life (Wisd Sol 8:19-20 reflects Alexandrian, not Palestinian Judaism), but of life in the womb, Gen. 25:22, telling of the twins Jacob and Esau struggling in Rebecca’s womb, provoked some interesting explanations." (see more on this here)
Grace and peace,
Aaron
Those who take Hebrews 12:9 to support the notion of us all being natural children of God via a sexual union between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother should read the preceding two verses (7-8),
"It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons."
If we take verse 9 as woodenly as Mormonism insists, then we have to assume according to 7-8 there are people here on earth who are illegitimate children of God, who are "not sons". How would that work? Would they be the result of an adulterous affair of the Mormon Heavenly Mother, or would they simply come from another Father-Mother union unknown to us?
I would say angels become men, because that is what spirits do–that is the nature of life.
Here is a biblical definition of angels, since you asked. It seems to fit my definition a little better than yours.
Heb 1:13
But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Like I said. A spirit is the offspring of God, not yet born or still not resurrected from the dead. The ONLY difference between a spirit and an angel is the power and authority from God. They minister to mankind on assignment from God.
The fact that Satan has power to mimic their appearance doesn't mean they don't exist, or that God has changed his means to minister to mankind.
The only reason you don't have more experience with these things is –God restored the keys of the ministering of angels to Joseph Smith, not to biblical scholars. You really need the power of the restored priesthood to participate.
Why can I only post very short comments? I am afraid I am not using this sytems correctly.
Try pushing the up and down arrows, sometimes that'll help the comment box expand. Otherwise, write your comment in wordpad or textpad, and then paste it into the comment box and click "submit comment". Sorry for any confusion.
Not to be too pointed but it is difficult enough to attempt to educate evangelicals about the basics of LDS doctrine – but is it really necessary to instruct you about the basics of Protestant and Catholic theology?
Notwithstanding that these passages touch upon such topics as Grace and the wickedness of men, as any Catholic or Protestant scholar would affirm, the canons from the Second Council of Orange of 529 AD that you have cited do not resemble or correspond to the Doctrine of Total Depravity as originally formulated by Jean Calvin in the 16th century. The Doctrine of Total Depravity is really far more bleak than anything postulated by the Council of Orange.
You would certainly benefit from investigating the writings of Jean Calvin and studying the history of Christian theology.
I don't get your insistence that Calvin is radically different from the historical Council of Orange presented here. I have read Calvin, now I am familiar with these Canons issued at this council. I see no disagreement between them. Actually, I find them very affirming of one another. Your insistence that there is some bleakness in Calvin's view of man's inability to save himself that is not also affirmed in this early Church council seems completely off base to me. I get the same meaning out of both – it does show that the reformers were getting back to the historical Biblical roots of the Church and salvation through and by Christ alone – with man being completely without hope or ability to save himself apart from Christ's sacrifice on the cross and the Holy Spirit drawing us to God. Calvin is full of hope – hope and joy in Christ, not man.
SteveH,
I do have to wonder if we are speaking of the same John Calvin, the 16th Century French Theologian who took up residence in Geneva? He also wrote the Institutes of the Christian Religion, because if that is not the John Calvin you were referring to then I can see our disconnect.
However if this is the Jean Calvin you are referring to I suggest you look up his work The Bondage and Liberation of the Will where he cites this Council extensively against Roman theologians who rejected the total depravity of man. Maybe I am not understanding what you think the Doctrine of Total Depravity is. Since you have already confused total and utter it seems as though you don't understand the position. Perhaps if you give your understanding of Calvin's view total depravity we might be able to see where it differs from the council's and perhaps Calvin's own understanding.
Now I will agree that the Council of Orange didn't use language such as "Total Depravity" "Total Inability" "Bondage of the Will" however if you don't see those concepts being taught in the council then how do you understand the Canons taught there?
Lautensack
God did promise in the scriptures that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. And I believe the Church universal, the redeemed of Christ, has been here on earth since Christ established the Church. God revealed His word in time and space, in real places to real people with the intent that it would serve to point people to Christ crucified – that's essentially the whole message and intent of the Bible – God's redemption of man. If God established His Church, and the Bible, it makes sense He would preserve it as He promised. Otherwise why bother? If God did not preserve His word it might as well be immediately consumed in a house fire after being written down – what's the point?
Since God is in sovereign control of everything, one would have to question why would He establish His Church only to have it snuffed out before it really began, so He could restore it in upstate New York almost 2 thousand years later with a book about a people never mentioned before in any scripture? It seems odd that the Book of Mormon seems to know about the land of Israel, but the Bible knows nothing of the land of the Nephites and Lamanites. Archeologists know nothing of these people either.
Mo
I need some definitions. Church=redeemed of Christ? Does that encompass any specific entity (ie Catholic or universal). How does one reconcile the fact that having access to the scriptures did not exist for over 1500 years after Christ?How would one come to the knowledge of Christ if they did not have the scriptures. And if God was in control why would he let access to the Word be "snuffed out" for centuries only to enable that in our time with the printing press? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Seems no different than the Restoration.
Aaron, many congratulations to you and your family